Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Calculational convenience is one justification for LNT given long ago by the

ICRP. Perhaps they did not realize what a high price society has to pay for

this

"convenience".





----- Original Message -----

From: Johansen, Kjell <Kjell.Johansen@nmcco.com>

To: Radsafe (E-mail) <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 9:10 AM

Subject: Re: COGEMA Says No to LNT





> RADSAFE:

> For what it's worth,   I remember reading, about 25 years ago, in a volume

called the Proceedings of the  Indiana Academy of Science published back in

the teens of the last century an article decrying the fact that the Indiana

legislature had passed a law making p = 3 because it was easier for the

school children to remember.  It was too hard for school children to

remember 3.14156 or 3 1/7th.  Therefore everyone in Indiana would use 3 as

the value of p.

>

> It seems that many folks like LNT for the same reason.  It is easier to

work with.  It's so much easier to make predictions as to the number of

deaths or whatever from cumulative small doses if we have a liner

relationship that extends down to zero.







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/